Talk:Curiosity (rover)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remove Website hosting section?[edit]

The last paragraph of this article is a very technical description of how the website for the Curiosity rover is hosted. This information is not relevant to the rover itself and would only be understood by an IT professional or someone with a technical understanding of IT. Unless anyone disagrees here, I shall remove this section shortly. Savlonn (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - It is of low relevance and it is certainly not an "award". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - *Entirely* ok with me to remove the section - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera.jpg to appear on the main page[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 17, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Curiosity (rover)

A self-portrait by the Mars rover Curiosity on October 31, 2012. The mosaic is stitched from a set of 55 images taken by the Mars Hand Lens Imager at "Rocknest," the spot in Gale crater where the mission's first scoop sampling took place. Self-portraits such as this help NASA document the state of the rover and track changes, such as dust accumulation and wheel wear.

Photograph: NASA
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

It has been suggested that this image should be described as a "selfie", since the Oxford dictionary has recently accepted this term. The dictionary also accepts "pussy" as a synonym for "cat". Would the "selfie" proponents also suggest that cats should be described as pussies in Wikipedia? DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Current new News[edit]

Headline-1: Rock sample taken by NASA's Mars rover could yield new chemical, mineral finds

QUOTE: "Samples of Martian rock powder taken by NASA’s Curiosity rover this week could reveal new chemical and mineral elements on the red planet, team members say." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Penny significance[edit]

Is Curiosity the only rover to have a penny or other coin on board? And if so, does that make this the first exploratory lander (as opposed to non-landing space probe) to carry with it an image of a human being (Lincoln)? If so, this should definitely be noted here. (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (07/14/2014-2pm/et/usa) - Search for Life Beyond Earth.[edit]

NASA-TV - Monday, July 14, 2014 (2:00-3:30pm/et/usa) - panel of leading experts to discuss plans leading to the "discovery of potentially habitable worlds among the stars"[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - NASA VIDEO REPLAY - Space Experts Discuss the "Search for Life in the Universe" (86:49) at => - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


NASA-TV (07/31/2014@12pm/et/usa) - Mars 2020 Rover - Announcement.[edit]

NASA-TV (07/31/2014@12 noon/pm/et/usa) - Panel of leading experts to announce instruments for the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - RELATED NASA REFERENCES - Space Experts Announce Mars 2020 Rover Payload => M2020 - Video (51:42) - New Science Instruments (July 2014) - ALSO[2] - AND[3] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne (July 30, 2014). "NASA to Announce Mars 2020 Rover Instruments". NASA. Retrieved July 30, 2014. 
  2. ^ Brown, Dwayne (July 31, 2014). "RELEASE 14-208 NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload to Explore the Red Planet as Never Before". NASA. Retrieved July 31, 2014.  line feed character in |title= at position 15 (help)
  3. ^ Brown, Dwayne (July 31, 2014). "NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload to Explore the Red Planet as Never Before". NASA. Retrieved July 31, 2014. 

NASA Planetary Senior Review Panel report[edit]

Link to Senior Review Panel report. -- ToE 19:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Although a comparison is made to the cost of the Beagle 2 lander, I don't see any budget for Curiosity, or any hint what the monetary cost would have been, preferably broken down in various ways (development, launch, operations, etc). (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

See Mars Science Laboratory#History. This article specifically discusses the rover, whereas that article discusses the overall mission, and is the appropriate place for costs. Huntster (t @ c) 06:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (09/11/2014@1pm/et/usa) - Curiosity Rover - Future Studies.[edit]

NASA-TV/ustream (Thursday, 09/11/2014@1pm/et/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss the mission status and future science campaign of the Curiosity Rover[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)\

FOLLOWUP - Space Experts Discuss the Curiosity Rover and Future Plans (a/o September 11, 2014) - Archived Discussion => Audio (62:44) and Visuals - AND - related NYT ref[2] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Agle, DC (September 9, 2014). "MEDIA ADVISORY M14-154 NASA Holds Teleconference to Discuss Science Campaign of Curiosity Mars Rover". NASA. Retrieved September 10, 2014.  line feed character in |title= at position 23 (help)
  2. ^ Chang, Kenneth (September 11, 2014). "After a Two-Year Trek, NASA's Mars Rover Reaches Its Mountain Lab". New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2014. 

Telecommunications diagram[edit]

A while ago I created an image in preparation for the arrival of MAVEN and MOM. However, this is not my area of expertise and it is quite possible that my diagram is inaccurate. Is it? JKDw (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for a "Findings" section[edit]

Someone that knows more about this that me should write a "Findings" section to summarize the discoveries of Curiosity. OriumX (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Is an interview with Curiositys chief engineer spam?[edit]

I watched an excellent hour-long interview with Curiositys chief engineer, as it confirmed and expanded on this article and is free to watch (its creative commons licenced) I added it as an external link, just to have it removed as spam, were they right? Rob Manning interviewed on the TV show Triangulation on the network Back ache (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Back ache: - Thank you for your comments - I reverted your good faith addition on the basis of possible xs WP:Spam on the link - for me, seemed a lot of spam to view before the interview even started - ideally, and if possible, a site with less spam may be better I would think - I tried youtube ( ) but seems the same spam remains for the interview - so far, I've been unable to find the interview on the NASA WebSite ( ) although other materials by Rob Manning seem available - perhaps others may have better luck? - at the moment, my position on re-adding the link is flexible - Comments from others always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire video is an 1 hour 25 min long long, there is an ad and a title sequence but thats over by 1:41 and in total the adverts are only a small percentage of the time and can be skipped through, given this is first-hand information from a prominent member of the project a little skipping I think is a small price to pay, I would even go as far to say that watching the entire thing open whilst you have the artical open would add extra info as well as acting as a great reference source. Whats also really nice is that the interview is technical enough to get the most from the interviewee, my favourite bit is Rob saying they all love The Martian ! (I do too) Back ache (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (12/8/2014@12noon/et/usa) - Curiosity Rover - Observations.[edit]

NASA-TV/ustream (Monday, December 8, 2014@12noon/et/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss the latest observations of the Curiosity Rover[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - Space Experts Discuss the Curiosity Rover and Latest Observations (a/o December 8, 2014)[2][3] - Archived Discussion => Audio (62:03) and Visuals - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Webster, Guy; Brown, Dwayne (December 3, 2014). "NASA to Hold Dec. 8 Media Teleconference on Mars Rover Curiosity Observations". NASA. Retrieved December 3, 2014. 
  2. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Webster, Guy (December 8, 2014). "Release 14-326 - NASA's Curiosity Rover Finds Clues to How Water Helped Shape Martian Landscape". NASA. Retrieved December 8, 2014. 
  3. ^ Kaufmann, Marc (December 8, 2014). "(Stronger) Signs of Life on Mars". New York Times. Retrieved December 8, 2014. 

Scientific discoveries[edit]

Since the main purpose of the mission is to collect scientific information, this page badly needs to document the scientific discoveries of the mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Body / Engineering[edit]

Was looking for some details on how the rover is holding up -- wear and tear. Adding a section which includes major components of the rover - robotic arms, wheels, antennae, navigation cameras, computer hardware (and software updates), motor / propulsion, frame / body - would be the first step in addressing this.

I might consider taking on this task, (and the other suggestion about adding something on "Findings" or "Scientific Discoveries"), but it would take more research than presently I have time for, especially since I've not been a Wikipedia "contributor", other than cleaning up typos I find here and there. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: The Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory seems to cover your requests. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Response: I am guilty of reading through the entire article too quickly, because SOME of what I seek IS found in the existing article under "Specifications". "Specifications" I find to be an unclear heading, although it may be consistent with similar articles and in that case I will accept it as a standard term. It would be stronger if the sub-headings were clear and distinguished, such as are the subheading of the next section on "Instruments". I appreciate BatteryIncluded's response, but am not sure if he is suggesting that "Timeline ..." eliminates the need for (sub)sections on "Scientific Discoveries" or "Wear & Tear" in this article, or serves as a starting point for creating these new (sub)sections. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a sub-section dealing exclusively with the scientific results would be valuable. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (9/28/2015@11:30am/et/usa) - Mars Mystery Solved.[edit]

NASA-TV/ustream (Monday, September 28, 2015@11:30am/et/usa) - NASA will detail a "Major Science Finding" about the planet Mars[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - evidence presented that liquid water may be currently flowing on the planet Mars[2][3][4] (conference videos[5][6] and somewhat related Nature (journal) (1979) reference re lifeforms in hypersaline (and/or brine) water of Don Juan Pond, Antarctica[7]) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Webster, Guy; Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie (September 24, 2015). "NASA to Announce Mars Mystery Solved". NASA. Retrieved September 24, 2015. 
  2. ^ Chang, Kenneth (28 September 2015). "NASA Says Signs of Liquid Water Flowing on Mars". New York Times. Retrieved 28 September 2015. 
  3. ^ Webster, Guy; Agle, DC; Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie (28 September 2015). "NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars". Retrieved 28 September 2015. 
  4. ^ Ojha, Lujendra; Wilhelm, Mary Beth; Murchie, scortt L.; McEwen, Alfred S.; Wray, James J.; Hanley, Jennifer; Massé, Marion; Chojnacki, Matt (28 September 2015). "Spectral evidence for hydrated salts in recurring slope lineae on Mars". Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo2546. Retrieved 28 September 2015. 
  5. ^ Staff (28 September 2015). "Video Highlight (02:58) - NASA News Conference - Evidence of Liquid Water on Today's Mars". NASA. Retrieved 30 September 2015. 
  6. ^ Staff (28 September 2015). "Video Complete (58:18) - NASA News Conference - Water Flowing on Present-Day Mars". NASA. Retrieved 30 September 2015. 
  7. ^ Siegel, B.Z.; McMurty, G.; Siegel, S.M.; Chen, J.; Larock, P. (30 August 1979). "Life in the calcium chloride environment of Don Juan Pond, Antarctica". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/280828a0. Retrieved 30 September 2015. 

Beagle 2 hype/apologism in "Comparisons"[edit]

There's a huge sub-section about the failed Beagle 2 which seems to be making some ridiculous claims/comparisons. What's the point in saying Beagle 2's cost was 4% of Curiosity? And especially the talk about how "innovative" Beagle 2 was?

Beagle 2 (66cm L; 33kg W) is closer to Sojourner (66cm L; 11kg W) in size than even Spirit/Opportunity (160cm L; 185kg W), let alone Curiosity (300cm L; 900kg W).

Who cares if a failed mission of substantially smaller scale cost substantially less money than a large, successful one? Is this useful, enlightening, or meaningful information? Why is a failed ESA mission being defended in this article? —DapperWrapper (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Curiosity (rover). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, is "whether Mars could ever have supported" correct? I was under the impression that this should be written in present tense, i.e. "whether Mars can ever support". ~riley (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)